Posted on September 14, 2016 by Federal Disability Retirement Attorney

Why is it that money taints with toxicity of motive? If a person does something with no compensatory demand, does that fact alone make it less suspect? Does the professional soldier who gets paid by one’s own country show a level of patriotism unblemished, but the one who hires out for monetary rewards by another, belie a code of honor? What gives the scent of blemish, the hint of a soul’s impoverishment, and the sullied character of an inner decay?

Are we merely taught to remain in silent awe at the poor woman in the story of the miserly penny, and frown if a child begins laughing and saying, “What a fool to give up the last penny!” Are saints born, or are they taught and disciplined, when the innate signs of cynicism may yet win out over the empathy of a fool’s errand? What good is “goodness” in an evil world? Do we remember Bonhoeffer, or was his courage forgotten amidst the thousands of graves both marked and without remembrance, in a world where community no longer exists and friends are counted by Facebook likes and never by the warmth of human comity?

Somehow, money taints, and the toxicity of the transfer sticks like mud to the boots of a killer, leaving tracks and traces in the bogs of lives tarnished. Yet, it is the exchange by which dreams are made, the goal for which daily toil is endured, and the chances taken in bribes received in order to attain a measure of financial security and the declarative success of an age where hypocrisy dares to utter its laughable voice of despair.

Is it because we believe that mercenaries fail to believe in that which is being fought for, and instead confuse the means for an end we misguidedly believe should be the end in and of itself? Does engaging an individual for purposes of honor, country, faith and other tropes of a nation’s visage of vacuous promises make it any more substantive if the abandonment of a country of its own vital principles reaches a point where such terms no longer apply?

There are those who romanticize the independence of the mercenary, despite the Geneva Convention restrictions which grant lesser protections in the event of capture; and, yet, history is replete with their use and presence, from Ancient Egypt during the rein of Pharaoh Ramesses II to the French Foreign Legion and the British Gurkha regiments, and beyond to modern warfare. But romanticization and reality often conflict and collide, and the remaining entrails of toxicity remain with the scent of avoidance.

In more quiet arenas of modern life, the term itself is often applicable not to fields of the battleground, but to individuals who “go after” others for rewards and reasons of similar taint and toxicity. In the employment arena, there are mercenaries aplenty, and they are predators that devour with equal ferocity.

For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset who suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, and therefore must prepare an effective Federal Disability Retirement application with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the duality of dangers must be faced.

First, the allegation that the Federal or Postal employee is merely being a “mercenary” by “taking advantage” of a generous system of medical retirements, and Second, to beware of the mercenaries of the Federal Agency or the U.S. Postal Service who aggressively go after the Federal or Postal employee weakened and unable to defend him or herself during the process of preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, precisely because of the medical condition itself.

In both instances, it is the mercenary instinct itself which dominates, and no amount of honor or faith in country can withstand the onslaught of the vicious outliers of such gossiping geese.

What determines value? More importantly, who judges worth? Is productivity the paradigmatic construct of comparative analysis? For, in order to assess the greater advantage of X over Y, some methodology of an objective basis should be applied in devaluing one as opposed to appointing the other as the beneficial contestant of an evaluative conclusion; or can we just arbitrarily gauge one over the other based upon personal preferences?

Rawls has variously pointed out that we can be just as “reasoned” in our conclusions by applying a consistent model of application in the social justice arena — for example, we may decide to execute all people discovered on the East end of town who are left-handed with brown-eyes on every third Sunday of odd-numbered months, and exonerate those in the same part of town who are right-handed on every fifth Tuesday of every other year. That is an arbitrary absurdity, one might declare, and one which fails to abide by the “rules of justice” as we know them.

Further, to diminish the value of one group based upon superficial concerns, while granting clemency to another based upon an equally unaccounted for basis, is to defy an objective application of fairness. But if such rules are implemented by an authoritarian figure who possesses confidential information that an underworld bevy of dangerous criminals gather to conspire at the East end of town every third Sunday of odd-numbered months, and that all of the leaders of the group happen to be left-handed; and, further, that loyal patriots who are often mistaken for those same criminals likewise meet to fight against the known dangerous elements on every fifth Tuesday of alternate years, and who happen to be right-handed, would one’s judgment be different with this new information?

Certainly, the application of justice would be consistent, and there is a rationality of purpose behind it, now. What changed the judgment of value? Or, have we now altered the definition of the concept, like a metamorphosis of the linguistic caterpillar that, overnight, became a beautiful butterfly fluttering against the winds of historical change?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, the concept of a worthwhile life often attaches itself to the level of productivity one believes one is capable of, and the capacity for which diminishment reflected in a self-image of mistaken belief is that by which it is justified.

Be wary of making decisions based upon what others have deemed to be as the paradigmatic definition of the worthwhile life; it may be that one’s own judgment is as arbitrary and devoid of substantive content as the misbelief that most of us have of the pasture being greener in the neighbor’s yard.

Statistical constructs indicate group shifts and movements; numbers, based upon controlled samplings, provide the substantive fodder for analysis of trends and patterns of population deviancies. There is, however, the question of the incommensurate nature between mathematical paradigms and linguistic application; stated more simply, Do numbers hide more than reveal, and can anything be extrapolated from them and interpreted in terms we can understand and comprehend?

To a winner of the lottery, the numerical phantasm “one in a billion” remains meaningless; and to the dismissive statistical irrelevancy stated in language more readily comprehended, that there is a greater chance of dying in an automobile accident than from a shark attack, becomes inconsequential and of little comfort if you are laying in a hospital bed with a good part of your flesh missing from such a traumatic event. That’s the problem with numbers, of course, and the use, misuse and abuse of statistical analysis; in the end, it depends upon how it is used, the methodology of discourse, and the manner of application.

To be hit by lightening may well be more uncommon than death by drowning, but if your job is to be a caddy for an eccentric billionaire who enjoys golfing on days of severe weather patterns, the generalizations ascribed by comparative mathematical analysis may be somewhat skewed. And, of course, for romance of young couples who scoff at divorce rates and patterns affirmed by celebrity lives and the cultural meltdown pervasive throughout, the lack of life experiences, the want of provocation through trials and turmoils yet to be encountered and not yet encumbering, allows for hope, charity and a sense of optimism despite the universe which surrounds of cynical diatribes.

We take comfort in the veil of numbers, precisely because we can manipulate them in the ways we want. Facing a bleak outlook, we can justify resistance with a dismissive wave of the hand (or that invisible wand of magic and sorcery) and declare, “Well, the chances are…” Numbers never tell of the human emotions and toil of reality; they remain as cold mathematical calculations, jiggered and manipulated by the picture of emotionless bureaucrats who wear spectacles to magnify the inconsequential harm imparted upon the lives left behind.

And for Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who must file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management? Such individuals, whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, become part and parcel of the statistical conundrum who once had names, faces and identities, but somehow became relegated into the numerical aggregate of “those” people who departed by filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through OPM, all because they could no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of the positional duties assigned.

Does such fear of becoming a mere irrelevancy of statistical obscurity make the Federal or Postal employee pause, despite the chronic pain or the psychiatric despondency which tells of the urgency to file for the benefit? Probably. Yet, beyond the numerical veil which hides, each Federal or Postal employee who departed and left behind such a statistical imprint, go on to live productive lives thereafter, with ongoing emotional ups and downs, as real people, living authentic lives untold by the hidden abyss echoing from the chambers of silent digits.

It may well be a distinction with only a slight difference, as most such conceptual bifurcations tend to be. In this day and age, we tend to just gloss over the minutiae which used to delight curious minds and pave the pathway for tenured professorships by way of publishing in esoteric journals of the Gestalt conclusions derived in academia — those slight nuances heretofore unnoticed which are suddenly and miraculously discovered by the keen insights of an eccentric perspective.

Thus, in life do we leave many things behind and set aside, for repairs to be attended to at a later time; and like a trail of dust reflected well by Pig-pen in Peanuts, the junk scattered tells of the character of the person, the inner essence of the personality, and the core of a human being’s wants, desires and tendencies of action or inaction. At the end of one’s life, what does the junkyard of humanity reflect and represent?

We, each of us, create them; of vast reservoirs of rusting appliances, and often unrepairable masses of collected antiquities, where components for any semblance of working order have become obsolete or otherwise unavailable. Some of those items scattered behind or left asunder, are the “emotional” ones; others, of family ties broken or damaged so severely as to belie any chance of regeneration, where reincarnation in the next phase of life must muse to consider reinvigoration of animation, whence the lifeless form once showed a promise of a future still bright.

We cannot go back and repair everything we have left aside or behind; there simply is not enough time in life in order to do that. That’s why we left things undone in the first place; time requires prioritization — otherwise, in attempting to do everything, we end up doing nothing.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who have, in the last few years, felt the progressive decline of health and the consequences of being unable to attend to the most important of issues facing anyone and everyone — one’s own health — the time to prepare and formulate an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed through one’s own agency (if not yet separated from Federal Service, or otherwise separated for 31 days or more, but not 1 year hence from the date of Federal Separation) and then to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is likely upon and passed beyond the time of prudence.

Junkyards are common sights; some are openly displayed, while others are hidden behind walls and fences; but it is the scattered debris of things unseen, the physical pain and the emotional scars ignored, which need the greatest of care, attention and repair; and for the Federal or Postal employee — whether under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, who suffers from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal employee from performing all of the essential elements of the Federal or Postal job — it is well beyond the time to prioritize the central themes of life and living, and get those repairs done which we need to get to, and forget about the peripheral concerns which should have been left behind long ago.

Seven False Myths about OPM Disability Retirement

1) I have to be totally disabled to get Postal or Federal disability retirement.
False: You are eligible for disability retirement so long as you are unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of your job. Thus, it is a much lower standard of disability.

2) My injury or illness has to be job-related.
False: You can get disability even if your condition is not work related. If your medical condition impacts your ability to perform any of the core elements of your job, you are eligible, regardless of how or where your condition occurred.

3) I have to quit my federal job first to get disability.
False: In most cases, you can apply while continuing to work at your present job, to the extent you are able.

4) I can't get disability if I suffer from a mental or nervous condition.
False: If your condition affects your job performance, you can still qualify. Psychiatric conditions are treated no differently from physical conditions.

5) Disability retirement is approved by DOL Workers Comp.
False: It's the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the federal agency that administers and approves disability for employees at the US Postal Service or other federal agencies.

6) I can wait for OPM disability retirement for many years after separation.
False: You only have one year from the date of separation from service - otherwise, you lose your right forever.

7) If I get disability retirement, I won't be able to apply for Scheduled Award (SA).
False: You can get a Scheduled Award under the rules of OWCP even after you get approved for OPM disability retirement.